TRAM (The Rest Are Mine) / Claim All Remaining Tricks

[fuzzycoatimundi]

I think it would be a great improvement to every trick-taking game available on BGA (Hearts, Skat, etc.) to allow a player to claim all the remaining tricks in a hand. Every other player would then be able to see the cards in that player's hand and agree to give them the tricks, or force them to play it out.

This was implemented previously in Hearts on Yahoo! Games with the "TRAM" button. There are many times when it's clear that the last several tricks will all be taken by a single player, and this would speed gameplay up significantly.

Submitted suggestion if you'd like to upvote: https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=14216

[Jest Phulin]

Just playing devil's advocate here -- what happens if someone hits that button, but doesn't actually have the rest of the tricks? I like the idea of speeding up the game play, just looking for the possible problems implementing it might introduce.

[RicardoRix]

It's the best part for gloating / shame, enjoy your victory - you earned it. Also a very good time for reflection, the worse the experience the more you'll think, learn and remember how not to do it again.

[fuzzycoatimundi]

Just playing devil's advocate here -- what happens if someone hits that button, but doesn't actually have the rest of the tricks? I like the idea of speeding up the game play, just looking for the possible problems implementing it might introduce.

The idea is that every other player must vet the claimer's proposal to take all the tricks (similar to proposing to collectively abandon a game). If any other player sees a way to take a trick, they can force the rest of the hand to be played out as normal, with the exception that the claimer's hand has been revealed. No need to programme any game logic, we just let the other players verify.

[Paddles]

I think an automatic TRAM would be fine in Hearts - with the disclaimer that it doesn't let you get the benefits of shooting the moon (i.e. if I TRAM and take all the hearts+QS, my score drops 26 rather than everyone else's). That way, there is no possible way of getting a benefit from doing TRAM other than speeding up the inevitable.

The risk with relying on each other player having to confirm/deny is that, under circumstances, if I were to claim TRAM, two opponents were to say "I agree" but the other doesn't, then that gives me valuable information about the distribution of remaining cards which I might be able to use to force a good outcome rather than relying on luck or an educated guess.

[Jest Phulin]

I think an automatic TRAM would be fine in Hearts - with the disclaimer that it doesn't let you get the benefits of shooting the moon (i.e. if I TRAM and take all the hearts+QS, my score drops 26 rather than everyone else's). That way, there is no possible way of getting a benefit from doing TRAM other than speeding up the inevitable.

Why not allow shooting with TRAM? If I have already taken the Spade Queen and 8 Hearts (2 tricks), and have the lead and 3 high hearts, I should be able to claim the rest of the points and shoot. And, in claiming the rest of the points, it really doesn't matter what the remainder of the tricks are.

[Paddles]

Why not allow shooting with TRAM?

I was talking about an automatic TRAM (i.e. not where the other players have to agree). With an automatic TRAM, someone could TRAM on the second trick and be rewarded for shooting the moon no matter how bad their cards were.

I'm comfortable with TRAM being for conceding that you're in a bad position and there's no point in drawing it out. Not so much for claiming (correctly or incorrectly) that you're in an unbeatable position and everyone else should just concede.

[Jest Phulin]

Ah. I missed the word automatic. My bad.

[fuzzycoatimundi]

The risk with relying on each other player having to confirm/deny is that, under circumstances, if I were to claim TRAM, two opponents were to say "I agree" but the other doesn't, then that gives me valuable information about the distribution of remaining cards which I might be able to use to force a good outcome rather than relying on luck or an educated guess.

Perhaps, but this seems unlikely. Generally, opponents will evaluate the TRAM player's hand regardless of cards in their own or their opponents' hands. I'm not going to accept a claim just because I don't have any ways to win another trick myself—I'm only going to accept the claim if it's not possible for any of the opponents to win another trick. And if an opponent isn't comfortable doing the math to figure out whether the claim is valid or not, they just continue playing out the hand.

Another thing to note is that some tournament rules explicitly permit claiming the remaining tricks with opponent consent (at least, International Skat tournament rules do).

[Jest Phulin]

Just trying to clarify the coding required for this, and how it would be implemented. (This also provides a step-by-step way to analyze the suggestion, and point out more specific issues.)

1. A TRAM button is enabled on a player's turn.
2. When pressed, that player's hand is revealed to all other players.
2b. No other players' hands are revealed
3. A new button appears, accessible to each player, to agree or disagree that they cannot take a trick. This button exists outside the game time -- IE, players can click on it during or not during their turn, and it doesn't affect the time for other moves. The game continues until all players have voted.
4. To prevent any unintentional information, the results of the vote are not published -- only if the player has voted or not.
5. Once all voting is completed, If all players agree, the round ends immediately, with all cards going to the claimant.
5b. Once all voting is completed, If at least one player didn't agree, the claimant's hand is once again hidden.

Important: the system's responsibility in this is to reveal/hide the hand, report when each player has voted, tally the results, and act on the results of the vote. It does not analyze any hand.

-----
If all players don't agree, courtesy in play should be to *not* ask who disagreed, or why.